Gec 8 Ethics Module

2021
GEC 8 Faculty
8/19/2021
This is a property of
PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY
NOT FOR SALE
GEC 8 – Ethics
First Edition, 2021
Copyright. Republic Act 8293 Section 176 provides that “No copyright shall subsist
in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the
government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for
exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things,
impose as a condition the payment of royalties.
Borrowed materials included in this module are owned by their respective copyright
holders. Every effort has been exerted to reach and seek permission to use these
materials from their respective copyright owners. The University and authors do not
claim ownership over them.
Learning Module Development Team
Assigned Title Author/s

Chapter
Chapter 1 The Ethical Dimension of Venzeil F. Decena, Rpm, LPT
Human Existence
Chapter 2 Utilitarianism Venzeil F. Decena, Rpm, LPT
Chapter 3 Natural Law Cyrem F. Decena, Rpm
Chapter 4 Virtue Ethics Kriszanne De Guia LPT
Chapter 5 Making Informed Decisions Kriszanne De Guia LPT
Evaluators:
(First Name, Middle Initial, Last Name), Position

Course Overview
Introduction
Ethics deals with principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the
person, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared resources
(CMO 20 s 2013)
Morality pertains to the standards of right and wrong that an individual originally
picks up from the community. The course lays the groundwork – the meaning of
ethics- and leads through the analysis of human experience, linking it to the elements
of the ethical dimension. It also takes students through the various classical ethical
frameworks – utilitarianism, virtue ethics and natural law ethics. This course also
guides the students through analysis and evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses
of the various frameworks and their value to human life and society.
The goal of higher education institutions is to develop well-rounded individuals who

value knowledge in general, are open-minded as a result of it, are secure in their
individual identities and as Filipinos, and are proactive in the nation's and
community's life. While the goal of the general education subject is to develop a
professionally, humane and moral person, prepare student for demands of 21stcentury
life and enable student to locate her/himself in the community and the world and
engage it meaningfully.
Thus, one of the courses that will ideally contribute to the development of one's
intellectual competencies and civic capacities, as well as one's ability to comprehend
the complexities of the social and natural realities around us, as well as one's ability to
think through the ethical and social implications of a given course of action, is ethics.
This module strives to be faithful to the pursuit of this ideal.
Course General Objectives

By the end of the course, the students will be able to:
CILO 1 Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems and describe

what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human
existence
CILO 2 Explain the influence of Filipino culture in the way students look at
moral experiences and solve moral dilemmas and describe the elements
of moral development and moral experience
CILO 3 Use ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral experiences and

make sound ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral
experiences
CILO 4 Make sound ethical judgments based on principles, facts and the
stakeholders affected and develop sensitivity to the common good
CILO 5 Understand and internalize the principles of ethical behavior in modern

society at the level of the person, society, and in interaction with the
environment and other shared resources.
From: CILO in CHEd provided Ethics Syllabus https://ched.gov.ph/wp-

content/uploads/2017/10/Ethics.pdf aligned to CMO 20, s. 2013 for GEC
Course Details:
• Course Code: GEC 8

• Course Title: Ethics
• No. of Unit: 3
• Classification: Lecture-based
• Pre-requisite / Co-Requisite: None
• Semester and Academic Year: 1st Semester, AY 2021-2022
• Schedule: depending on the Teaching Load
• Name of Faculty: Venzeil F. Decena
• Contact Details
Email: [email protected]
Mobile Number: 0956-522-9724
Viber: 0956-522-9724
FB Account: Venzeil Decena https://www.facebook.com/zl.dec797
• Consultation
Day: TTH
Time: 8:00-9:30AM
Learning Management System
The University LMS will be used for asynchronous learning and assessment. The link
and class code for LMS will be provided at the start of class through the class’ official
Facebook Group, Google Classroom and Messenger Group Chats.
Assessment with Rubrics

Students will be assessed in a regular basis thru quizzes, long/unit/chapter tests,
individual/group outputs using synchronous and/or asynchronous modalities or
submission of SLM exercises. Rubrics are also provided for evaluation of
individual/group outputs.
Major examinations will be given as scheduled. The scope and coverage of the
examination will be based on the lessons/topics as plotted in the course syllabus.
0323
Module Overview
Introduction
This is a self-learning module in Ethics. This module will not teach you what is right
and wrong; rather, it will assist you in making your own decisions. More precisely, it
will provide you with conceptual and analytic skills to help you think ethically.
Different approaches to the study and understanding of ethics contextualized in

modern Filipino experiences are required to understand the foundations of moral
valuation. This module is designed to follow the philosophical pedagogy developed
over years of course instruction while also completely conforming to CHED
Memorandum Order 20 s. 2013. Aiming to be interdisciplinary, the text is combined
with philosophical texts, historical overviews and real life case studies to challenge
the students to come up with an informed ethical decision.
The first chapter of this module provides as a foundation for our exploration of the
topic. Here, we recognize ethics as an important aspect of our existence and begin to
consider how we might think ethically. In Chapters 2 to 4, we go in depth through
each one of the frameworks. This is in order to comprehend the various ways in which
these theories provide us with a means of assessing ethical valuation. The final
chapter of this module involves an extensive engagement of these ethical theories
with the real-life issues that confront us, calling for moral deliberation. The end goal
for us is to be able to make informed decisions and judgments on significant concerns
after careful thought.
Each chapter starts with the learning objectives for that chapter. There is at least one
narrative or case derived from a news report to get us started on the specific lesson
and to emphasize how we are concerned with actual issues; in this module, we draw
materials, instances, and examples from Philippine realities, contexts, and
experiences. Each chapter ends with a summary and questions for reflection about the
discussion points and suggestions for further reading.
Table of Contents
Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations Page

Chapter 1 The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence
Lesson 1: Value
Lesson 2: Sources of Authority
Lesson 3: Senses of the Self
Chapter 2 Utilitarianism
Lesson 1: The Principle of Utility
Lesson 2: The Principle of the Greatest Number
Lesson 3: Justice and Moral Rights
Chapter 3 Natural Law
Lesson 1: Thomas Aquinas
Lesson 2: The Greek Heritage
Lesson 3: Essence and Varieties of Law
Chapter 4 Virtue Ethics
Lesson 1: Happiness and Ultimate Purpose
Lesson 2: Virtue as Excellence
Lesson 3: Moral Virtue and Mesotes
Chapter 5 Synthesis: Making Informed Decisions
Lesson 1: The Moral Agent and Contexts
Lesson 2: Moral Deliberation
Lesson 3: Self Society and Environment
Ethics
Chapter 1
THE ETHICAL DIMENSION

OF HUMAN EXISTENCE
Chapter 1
The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence

Introduction
In August 2007, newspapers reported what seemed to be yet another sad incident of
fraternity violence. Cris Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year-old student of the University
of the Philippines (UP), was rushed to the hospital in the early morning hours,
unconscious, with large bruises on his chest, back and legs. He passed away that
morning, and the subsequent autopsy report strongly suggests that his physical
injuries were most probably result of hazing. What exactly happened remains an open
question, as none of those who were with him that night came forward to shed light
on what had transpired? Needless to say, none of them came forward to assume
responsibility for the death of Cris.
Even as the leaders of the Sigma Rho fraternity publicly denounced the death of Cris,
those members who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and refusing to
cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the general public
clamoured for justice. In a move that surprised the student body, the UP Chancellor
called on all fraternities to justify their continued existence. Meanwhile the case of the
tragic death of Cris Anthony Mendez was left unresolved. It remains that way up to
this day.
No one knows just what exactly happened. No charges have been filed, no definitive
testimony has been forthcoming. But there is more to this for us than just a criminal
mystery. Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking questions such
as ‘What is the value of one’s life?” “What exactly were the wrongs done to Cris by
his so-called fraternity brothers?” or perhaps “is there any good in fraternities?” These
questions that concern good and bad, or right or wrong - and these questions
concerning value are the kind of questions that we deal in ethics.
Specific Objectives
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
- Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking;
- Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and
- Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-
held notions on ethics.
Duration
Chapter 1: The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence = 12 hours
(9 hours discussion;
3hours assessment)
Lesson
1 VALUE
Definition of Ethics
- The good things that we should do and the bad things that we should avoid;
the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of
acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behaviour.
It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that
we are required to respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet.
Clarifications and Terminologies
1. Recognize that there are instances when we make value judgements that
are not considered to be part of ethics.
Kinds of Valuations
a. Aesthetics – derived from the Greek word “aesthesis” (“sense” or
“feeling”) and refers to the judgements of personal approval or
disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste.
e.g.
For instance, I could say that a new movie I had just seen was
a good one because I enjoyed it or a song I heard on the radio was a
bad one because it had an unpleasant tone.
b. Etiquette – certain approval or disapproval of actions which can be

relatively more trivial in nature. It is concerned with right and wrong
actions, but those considered not quite grave enough to belong to the
discussion on ethics.
e.g.
For instance, I may think that it is right to knock politely on
someone’s door, while it is wrong to barge into someone’s office.
Perhaps I may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something
properly by saying please, and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that
I see picking her nose in public.
c. Technical Valuation – derive from the Greek word “techne” the

English words techniques and technical which are often used to refer to
a proper way (or right way) of doing things but may not necessarily be
an ethical.
e.g.
Learning how to bake, for instance I am told that the right
thing to do would be mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour or
sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream: this is the
right thing to do in baking but does not belong in the discussion of
ethics.
2. Ethics and Morals
• Morals – used to refer specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or

to describe acts that people perform.
• Ethics- the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human

behavior and ideal ways of thinking
3. Descriptive and Normative
• Descriptive Ethics – reports how people, particularly groups, make

their moral valuations without making any judgement either for or
against these valuations.
• Normative Ethics – often done in philosophy or moral theology,

engages questions “What could or should be the right way of acting? In
other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to
maintain as our standards or bases for moral valuations.
4. Issue Decision Judgement and Dilemma
• Moral issue – used to refer to those particular situations that are often
the source of considerable and inclusive debates (thus we would often
hear topics such as capital punishment and euthanasia as moral issue)
• Moral Decision – when one is faced in a situation and confronted by

the choice of what act to perform.
e.g. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay for.
• Moral Judgment – when one is an observer who makes an assessment
on the actions or behavior.
e.g. For instance, a friend of mine stole from a store and I find it
wrong to do so.
• Moral Dilemma – Going beyond the matter of choosing right over
wrong, or good over bad, and considering instead the more
complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two
goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils; When an individual
can choose only one from a number of possible actions and there are
compelling ethical reasons for the various choices.
e.g. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry

child, but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal.
Reasoning
Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite is
wrong? The study of ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to
consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting is unacceptable? To
put it in another way, what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way
of acting is either right or wrong?
A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for
acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say “I did not cheat on the
exam because I was afraid that I might get caught”. The promise of rewards and the
fear of punishment can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves
determinants of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good or
bad in particular pursuit. Is it possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way
of acting either acceptable or unacceptable?
Going beyond whatever motivations or incentive is present in an instance of
cheating (or not doing so), our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is
“Cheating is wrong” by recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond
rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuations, decisions and
judgment to be based on a principle or a moral framework.
Principle
- Rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her
moral decisions and judgement.
Moral Theory/Framework
- A systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral
principles. It is a structure which can evaluate our reasons for valuing a
certain decision or judgement. This can make us reflect on the principles that
we maintain and thus, the decisions and judgments we make. By studying
these, we can reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our
principles, thereby informing better both our moral judgments and moral
decisions.
Lesson
2 SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the
standards of valuations are imposed by a higher authority that commands our
obedience. In the following section we will explore three of such ideas: law, religion
and culture.
AUTHORITY OF THE LAW
• It is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social and
governmental institutions to regulate behavior. It has been defined as the
science of Justice or the Art of Justice. Law is a system that regulates and
ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state.
Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of a systems of sanctions
administered through persons and institutions, which all help in compelling us
to obey. Provides us with an objective standard that is obligatory and
applicable to all.
• One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of the law. The law does not
tell us what we should do; it works by constraining us from performing acts
that we should not do. To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what
to pursue, only what to avoid. Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics
solely from the negative perspective of that which we should not do,
disregarding the important aspect of a good which we could and should do,
even if the law does not require us to do so?
• To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler who had been run
over by a couple of vehicles. While there were many passers-by who
witnessed what had happened for quite a long while, no one did anything to
help. The child later died in the hospital. The law does not oblige people to
help others in need, so none of these passers –by were guilty of breaking any
law. However, many people reacting to this sad news report share a sense that
those passers-by were somewhat ethically culpable in their negligence. In
view, of all this, perhaps one should think of ethics in a way that does not
simply identify it with obedience of the law.
AUTHORITY OF THE RELIGION
“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore and always heed his charge: his
statutes, decrees, and commandments.” Deuteronomy 1:11
(New American Bible)
Divine Command Theory

• The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one is
obliged to obey her Creator. There are persons and texts that one believes are
linked to the Divine. By listening to this figures and reading these writings, an
individual discovers how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone
maintaining more radical form of this theory might go beyond this instruments
of Divine Revelation and claim that God “spoke” to her directly to instruct her
what to do.
✓ We are presented with a more or less clear code of prohibitions

and many of these prohibitions given by religion – “Thou shall
not kill, “Thou shall not steal”, Thou shall not commit
adultery” - seem to intuitively coincide with our sense of what
ethics should rightly demand.
✓ Religion is not simply prohibitive but it also provides us ideals

to pursue.
✓ Provides us with not just a set of commands but also Supreme

Authority that can inspire and compel our obedience in a way
that nothing else can.
• On the practical level, we realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions.

Each faith demands differently from its adherents, which would apparently
result in conflicting ethical standards.
• On conceptual level, we can see a further problem where one requires the
believer to clarify her understanding of the connection between ethics and the
Divine.
• We maintain that generally speaking it is a good thing for a person of faith to

abide by the teachings of her particular religion. But the divine command
theory demands more than this as it requires us to identify the entire sense of
right and wrong with what religion dictates. The conceptual problem we have
seen and the practical difficulties of simply basing ethics on the divine
command theory are reasons enough to wonder whether we have to set this
thinking aside. Now let us clarify one point: Our calling into question of the
divine command theory is not calling to question of one’s belief in God; it is
not intended to be a challenge to one’s faith. Instead, it is an invitation to
consider whether there may be more creative and less problematic ways of
seeing the connection between faith and ethics, rather than simply equating
what is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by God.
AUTHORITY OF CULTURE
Culture is the integrated pattern of human knowledge belief and behavior that
depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding
generations.
Cultural Relativism – From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump
to the further claim that sheer variety at work in the different ways of valuation means
there is no single universal standard for such valuations, and that this holds true as
well in the realm of ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is
relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one’s culture.
1. Cultural relativism seems to conform to what we experience which is the reality of

the differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations.
2. By taking one’s culture as standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations.
3. It teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we
are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another
culture is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn our own cultural moral codes is
neither superior or inferior to any other, but they would provide us the standards
that are appropriate and applicable to us.
James Rachels’ Criticism
1. The argument of criticism is premised on the reality of difference. Different

cultures have moral codes. We cannot say that any moral code is the right one.
But the disagreement may mean that the question of who is right or wrong is
not immediately evident, but it does not mean that there is no correct
resolution to the disagreement.
2. We realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgement on the
practices of another culture. This seems to be a generous and an open minded
way of respecting others but what if the practice seems to call for a comment.
Such as when a particular African tribe thought it is advantageous and
therefore right for them to wipe out a neighbouring people through a terrible
practice of genocide? Are we in no position to judge if this is wrong? Would
we be satisfied with concluding that we cannot judge another culture?
3. We realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgement on the
practices of even our own culture. If our culture was the basis of determining
what is right or wrong, we would be unable to say that something within our
cultural practice was problematic, precisely because we take our culture to be
the standard for making such judgments.
4. We can maintain it only by following presumption of our culture as a single
clearly defined substance or as something fixed and already determined. Now,
it is always possible to fid examples of a certain culture having unique practice
or way of life and to distinguish it from other culture’s practices, but it is also
becoming increasingly difficult to determine what exactly defines one’s
culture.
*Positive Points
Promotes sense of humility, that is, urging us not to imagine that our own
culture is superior to another. Such humility, however, should go hand in hand with a
capacity for a rational, critical discernment that is truly appreciative of human values.
*Weak Points
It basically renders us incapable of discerning about what values we may wish

to maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever culture gives us. It keeps us
from exploring whether there are values that are shared between cultures; keeps us
from comparing and judging- either positively or negatively – the valuations that are
made by different cultures.
Reflection
Returning to the case of Cris:
Can one claim that fraternities have their own culture that deserves
respect? What would be the strong and weak points of this claim?
Lesson
3 SENSES OF THE SELF

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to
tell oneself what the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards.
In this section we will look into three theories about ethics that center on the self.
SUBJECTIVISM
- Recognize that the individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all
moral valuation. She is the one who is confronted with the situation and is
burdened with the need to make a decision or judgement.
- The individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or
wrong.
➢ “No one can tell me what is right or wrong”
➢ “No one knows my situation better than myself”

➢ “I am entitled to my own opinion”
➢ “It is good, if I say it is good”
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
“Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are always
already motivated by self-interest”. The theory describes the underlying dynamic
behind all human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in any
particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already an underlying basis for how
one’s act. The ego or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions are geared
toward satisfying these interests.
Strong Points
1. Simplicity – when an idea is marked by simplicity, it has unique appeal to it; a
theory that conveniently identifies a single basis that will somehow account
for all actions is a good example of this.
2. Plausibility- It is plausible that self-interest is behind a person’s actions. It is

clearly the motivation behind many of the actions one perform which are
obviously self-serving; it could very well also be the motivation behind an
individual’s seemingly other-directed actions.
3. Irrefutable – there is no way to try to answer it without being confronted by

the challenge that, whatever one might say, there is the self-serving motive at
the root of everything.
Thus, if we cannot refute it, shall we consider it as true? And “Do we accept
the consequences of this theory?”
ETHICAL EGOISM
- It does not suppose all actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead,
ethical egoism prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own
interests, as the single overriding concern. We may act in a way that is
beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us.
- It is not just some pleasant pursuit of one’s own desires, but the imposition of
a will to power that is potentially destructive of both the self and the others.
One can take on this view, if one wishes, but it is also possible to wonder
whether there is a way of recognizing our being in the world with others, of
thinking of our own wellbeing concomitantly with the wellbeing of others.
Reflection
Returning to the case of Cris:
Do you think it is acceptable that those responsible for the death of Cris got
away with murder? Do you think it is right for someone to look after his/her own
welfare over any other concern such as justice?
SUMMARY
In this chapter, we have established the scope and the rationale for a
discussion of ethics. We explored various domains of valuation in order to distinguish
what makes a particularly grave type of valuation a moral or ethical one. We clarified
some of the terms that will be used in the study of ethics. We have also explored a
number of problematic ways of thinking of ethics: some give a too simplistic answer
to the question of our grounds or foundations for moral valuations, while others seem
to dismiss the possibility of ethics altogether.
References/Additional Resources/Readings
Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations” distributed by
Rex Bookstore, Inc.
Frankfurt Harry. 1988, “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person: The
Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays”. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp 11-25
Nagel, Thomas 1979. “The Fragmentation of Value. “Moral Questions. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 128-41
Rachels, James 1980, “Can ethics Provide Answers? “The Hastings Center Report,
Vol.10, No. 3, June, pp.32-40.
Reyes, Ramon Castillo. 2003, “The Relation between Ethics and Religious Belief.”
The Moral Dimension: Essays in Honor of Ramon Castillo Reyes, edited by Nemesio
S. Que, Jr., Oscar G. Bulaong, Jr., and Michael Ner E. Mariano, Queson City: Office
of Research and Publications, Ateneo de Manila University, pp.107-112.
Activity Sheet
Activity 1
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
COURSE YEAR SEC: ____________________ SCORE: ______________
Direction: Put the case for or against your view or idea by giving evidence for your
claims/reasons for or against; attempt to influence the reader to accept your view.
Part 1. Answer comprehensively.
Art and Offense
In 2011, the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) mounted an exhibit that included
Mideo Cruz’s “Politeismo”: an installation comprised of an amalgam of many images
including a statue of Jesus wearing Mickey Mouse ears, a crucifix adorned with a bright
red phallus, and a picture of the face of Jesus with a wooden ash tray with penis tacked on
the middle. Apparently conceived as a piece to promote critical thought and perhaps
debate on idolatry, it was seen by many in this predominantly Catholic country to be a
deliberate insult to their faith. Given the public outcry and the strong denouncement from
various religious and secular leaders, the exhibit was abruptly closed. In addition to being
threatened and having his work vandalized, Cruz was charged with obscenity. However,
he (as well as the administrators of the CCP) was acquitted of these charges by the courts
in 2013).
A case such as this allows us to consider questions on aesthetics, such as “Is it the point
of the work of art to be appealing or to be thought-provoking?” It also allows us to
consider political questions, such as “Who gets to decide which artists and which projects
may or may not receive funding from the state?” Our concern here is ethical, and perhaps
we can recognize that a number of highly significant ethical questions can be raised: Does
the artist have an ethical obligation to the sensibilities of his audience? Or does he have a
moral obligation only to be faithful to his vision and his art? What constitutes offense,
and at what point is offense severe enough as to require control or to justify retribution?
Does a religious majority have a monopoly on the understanding of what is right or
wrong? Does an artist have absolute freedom of expression, or are there proper
restrictions to this right? (Decide what you think based on the argument or evidence).
What do you think?

Part II. Answer comprehensively.
I. Imagine a scenario in which an image of someone who is the object of

religious devotion (such as Jesus Christ or Mary, the Mother of Jesus) is
placed side by side with a phallic image?
a. Is this an ethical issue? Why or why not?
b. Does the question of rightness or wrongness of this depend on which
religion you belong to? Explain your answer.
II. Look for another example of an artistic creation – a painting, poem, or song –
that is a source of either actual or potential conflict between the expression of
the artist and sensibility that finds this offensive. Present the significant details
and the reasons that the conflicting sides might have on this issue.
III. Look for and list down other sources wherein we find a dialogue between
ethics and the various domains of aesthetic, culture and religion.
Assessment Sheet
Assessment 1
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
Direction: Answer comprehensively.
1. Identify a list of: (a) obligations we are expected to fulfill, (b) prohibitions we are required
to respect, and (c) ideals we are encouraged to meet. Discuss whether they are ethical in
nature or not.
2. Are clothes a matter of pure aesthetic taste, or does it make sense for clothes to become a
subject in a discussion of ethics? Why? How about other forms of adornment, such as tattoos
and piercings?
3. Look for a newspaper article that tackles an ethical issue. Consider the following questions:
a. What makes this a matter of ethics?
b. What is your own ethical judgment on this case?
c. What are your reasons for this judgment?
4. Brainstorm and come up with a list of common Filipino values. Consider the strengths and
weaknesses of these?
5. Imagine that you are a legislator. What rules or laws that currently prohibit certain acts or
practices would you want to amend or repel? Also, are there certain acts or practices currently
permitted by the law that you would want to prohibit? Think of this on the level of your
school, your province and the nation.
6. Comment on this statement: “What I believe must be true If I feel very strongly about it”.
7. Is looking after the benefit of your own family over all other aspects considered as another
form of egoism? Discuss.
Rubrics for Essay
Each question will be graded based on this five (5) point rubric.
Score Completion Accuracy Comprehension Organization Conventions
5 The answer All Content Content is No major

is complete. informatio demonstrates a well-organized grammatical
n provided deep and easy to or spelling
is understanding read. Points errors. No
accurate. and application follow a more than
of ethical logical two minor
concepts. progression. It errors.
provides
examples
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

is missing informatio demonstrates well-organized grammatical
slight details n provided understanding and easy to or spelling
is and application read. Points errors. No
accurate. of ethical follow a more than
concepts. logical five minor
progression. It errors.
provides
examples
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis
3 The answer Most Content Content is Some major

is missing informatio demonstrates organized and and minor
multiple n provided basic easy to read. errors that
details. is understanding Points follow a don’t
accurate. and application mostly logical necessarily
of ethical progression. It impair
concepts. provides communicati
examples on.
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis
2 Content Some Content Content may Major and

suggests informatio demonstrates be unorganized minor errors
lack of n provided less than basic and difficult to significantly
preparation is understanding read. Points do weaken
or accurate. and application not follow a quality of
comprehens of ethical solidly logical communicati
ion. concepts. progression on, although
and have still
provided comprehensib
unrelated le.
examples.
1 Content A small Content Content is Communicati

only amount of demonstrates a unorganized, on seriously
marginally the lack of illogical, and impaired by
related to informatio understanding difficult to multitude of
the n is and application read. spelling/gram
question/pro accurate. of ethical matical
mpt. concepts. errors.
0 Content None of Content Content is very Multitude of

fails to meet the demonstrates a poorly major and
the basic informatio complete lack of organized, minor errors
requirement n provided understanding illogical, and makes the
s of the task. is and application difficult to answer
accurate. of ethical read. incomprehens
concepts. ible.
Ethics
Chapter 2
UTILITARIANISM
Chapter 2
Utilitarianism
Introduction
On January 25, 2015, the 8th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police
operation at Tukanalipao, Mamasapao in Maguindanao. Also known as Oplan
Exodus, it was intended to serve an arrest warrant for Zulkifli Bin Hir or Marwan, a
Malaysian terrorist and bomb maker who had a 5-million-dollar bounty on his head.
This mission eventually led to a clash between the Philippine National Police’s (PNP)
SAF, on one hand, and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on the other. Although the police operation
was successful because of the death of Marwan, the firefight that ensued claimed
sixty-seven lives including forty-four SAF troopers, eighteen MILF Fighters and five
civilians. However, the relatively high number of SAF members killed in this
operation caught attention of many including Philippine media and the legislature.
In one of the Congress investigations that followed this tragic mission, then Senate
President Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis Escudero debated the public hearing of
an audio recording of an alleged conversation that attempted to cover up the massacre
of the PNP-SAF commandos. Drilon questioned the admissibility of these recordings
as evidence under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law whereas Escudero cited Section 4 of
the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200) and explained that any communication or
spoken word or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or
any part thereof or any information therein contained, obtained and secured by any
person in any violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation. “Seator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the senate committee on
public order and dangerous drugs argued otherwise, “Sinabi na ni Senaator Drilon na
ito daw ay illegal, na hindi daw pwede, na ako daw ay pwedeng maging liable kung
ito daw ay ipapakinig sa senado, ako naman, ano ba naman itong mga batas na ito?...
Ang mga batas na to ay para malaman natin ang katotohanan at magkaroon tayo ng
hustisya. Itong anti-wiretapping or mga recording na ganito, kung hindi pwedeng
lalabs sa publiko, pwede naming gawing basehan sa executive session.”
Senator Poe response leads us to ask: Can the government infringe individual rights If
it is morally permissible for the government to infringe individual rights, when can
the government do so? Does it become legitimate to sacrifice individual rights when
considering the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people?
The case exposes the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and the Senate
investigations. The senate inquiry proceedings raised questions on the possibility of
wiretapping and the intrusion of one’s right to privacy. While the 1987 Philippine
Constitution does protect one’s right to private communication, it did provide some
exemptions to its inviolability. These exemptions included a lawful order of the court
and/or issues concerning public safety and order. RA 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law
and RA 9372 (or the Human Security Act of 2007) both provided exemptions on the
inviolability of the right to privacy in instances of treason, espionage, rebellion and
sedition. While this is a certainty a legal issue, can it also contribute a moral concern?
By raising the distinction between moral and legal issues and concerns, do you think
that these two are different? To simplify things, let us put aside the question of law
and let us assume that you were ask to decide whether wiretapping is morally
permissible or not? On what instances is wiretapping morally permissible and on what
instance it is not morally permissible.
Specific Objectives
- Discuss the basic principle of utilitarian ethics

- Distinguish between two utilitarian models: the quantitative model of Jeremy
Bentham and the qualitative model of John Stuart Mill
- Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international
scenarios
-
Duration
Chapter 2: Utilitarianism = 9 hours
(7 hours discussion;
2hours assessment)
Lesson
THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
1
Utilitarianism
- It is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination
of right behavior based on the usefulness of the action’s consequences.
- It claims that one’s actions and behavior are good inasmuch as they are directed
toward the experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest number of
person.
- Its root word is “utility” which refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s
actions.
- It is consequentialist – meaning the moral value of actions and decisions is based

solely or greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; it is the usefulness of results
that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad.
- According to Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), utility
refers to understanding the results of people’s actions. Specifically, they are interested
on whether this actions contribute or not to the world. The utilitarian value pleasure
and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its promotion of
happiness.
o Happiness is the experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons,

even at the expense of some individual rights.
o The pursuit for pleasure and pain are in fact the only principle in assessing
action’s morality
o The natural preferability of pleasure Mill refers to as theory of life.
The Principle of Utility

- Refers to our subjection to our sovereign masters: pleasure and pain
- Refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain and our
desire for pleasure.
- Refers to pleasure is only good if and only if, they produce more happiness than
unhappiness. This means that it is not enough to experience pleasure, but to also
inquire whether the things we do make us happier.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

- He argued that our actions are governed by two sovereign masters – which he calls
“pleasure and pain”. These masters are given to us by nature to help us determine
what is good or bad and what to be done and not; they fasten our choices to their
throne.
- He equates happiness with pleasure.
- He provided a framework for evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called Felicific
Calculus.
o Felicific calculus is a common currency framework that calculates the

pleasure that some actions can produce. In this framework, an action can be
evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure; duration or length
of the experience of pleasure; certainty, uncertainty, or the likelihood that
pleasure will occur; propinquity, remoteness, or how soon there will be
pleasure.
o In measuring the tendency to choose these actions we need to consider two

more dimensions:
▪ Fecundity – chance it has of being followed by sensations of the

same kind, and purity of the chance it has not being followed by
sensations of the opposite kind.
▪ Lastly is consideration of the number of person who are affected by
pleasure or pain, another dimension called Extent should also be
considered.
o Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all actions and their resultant
pleasure.
o This means that actions are evaluated on this single scale regardless of
preferences and values. In this sense pleasure and pain can only
quantitatively differ but not qualitatively differ from other experiences of
pleasure and pain.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873

- He reiterates moral good as happiness, and consequently happiness as pleasure.
- He clarifies that what makes people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us
unhappy is the privation of pleasure.
- He argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we avoid
doing things because they are painful.
- He dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of
utility must distinguish pleasure qualitatively and not merely quantitatively.
- Utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures appropriate for pigs or to any
other animals. He thinks that there are higher intellectual and lower base pleasure.
- We are capable of searching and desiring higher intellectual pleasures more than pigs
are capable of.
- Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An
excessive quantity of what otherwise pleasurable might result in pain.
- In deciding over two comparable pleasures pleasure, it is important to experience

both and to discover which one is actually more preferred than the other.
- Actual choices of knowledgeable persons’ points that higher intellectual pleasures are
preferable than purely sensual appetites.
Lesson
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE
2 GREATEST NUMBER
Principle of the Greatest Number
• According to John Stuart Mill, equating happiness with pleasure does not
aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent and independently from others.
This not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high,
intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of
the greatest number affected by the consequence of our actions.
Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism cannot lead us to selfish acts
• It is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.
• It is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the
quality of life for all persons.
• Is interested with everyone’s happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of

the greatest number
• Maximizes the total amount of pleasure over displeasure for the greatest
number.
• J.S. Mill pushes for the moral irrelevance of motive in evaluating actions.
Interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people. It is
not interested in the motive of agent.
• Moral value cannot be discernable in the intention or motivation of the

person doing the act; it is based solely on the difference it makes on the
world’s total amount of pleasure and pain.
Lesson
3 JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS
John Stuart Mill understands JUSTICE as respect for rights directed toward
society’s pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. MORAL
RIGHTS is a valid claim on society and are justified by utility.
Utilitarianism on Justice and Moral Rights
• The society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing
that their interests are protected and that society as a whole defends it.
• A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles inasmuch as they produce an

overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their
implementation.
• Utilitarian argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import
because the category of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most
vital interests
• Mill associates utilitarianism with the possession of moral and legal rights. He
understands that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are
subject to some exceptions.
• He points out that when legal rights are not normally justified in accordance to
the greatest happiness principle, then these rights neither be observed, nor be
respected. This is like saying that there are instances when the law is not
morally justified, and in this case, even objectionable.
• It is commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil disobedience

for the sake of promoting a higher moral good.
• Mill points out that moral rights take precedence over legal rights
• Moral rights are only justifiable by considerations of greater overall happiness.
• What matters in what we do is the resultant happiness, then anything may be

justified for the sake of producing the greatest happiness of the greatest
number of people.
• For Mill, justice can be interpreted in terms of moral rights because justice
promotes the greater social good.
Mill explains that the idea of justice supposed two things: a rule of conduct and a
sentiment which sanctions the rule. The first must be supposed common to all
mankind, and intended for their good. The other (sentiment) is a desire that
punishment may be suffered by those who infringe the rule. There is involved, in
addition, the conception of some definite person who suffers by the infringement;
whose rights (to use the appropriated to the case) are violated by it. And the sentiment
of justice appears to me to be, the animal desire to repel or retaliate a hurt or damage
to oneself, or to those whom one sympathizes, widened so as to include all persons,
by the human capacity of enlarged sympathy, and the human conception of intelligent
self-interest. From the latter elements, the feeling derives its morality; from the
former, its peculiar impressiveness, ad energy of self-assertion.
SUMMARY
Bentham and Mill see moral good as pleasure, not merely self-gratification,
but also the greatest happiness principle or the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people. We are compelled to do whatever increases pleasure and decreases
pain to the most number of persons, counting each as one and none as more than one.
In determining the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, there is no
distinction between Bentham and Mill. Bentham suggests his felicific calculus, a
framework for quantifying moral valuation. Mill provides criterion for comparative
pleasures. He thinks that persons who experience two different types of pleasures
generally prefer higher intellectual pleasures to base sensual ones.
Mill provides an adequate discourse on rights despite it being mistakenly

argued to be the weakness of utilitarianism. He argues that rights are socially
protected interests that are justified by their contribution to the greatest happiness
principle. However, he also claims that in extreme circumstances, respect for
individual rights can be overridden to promote better welfare especially in
circumstances of conflict valuation.
Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations”

distributed by Rex Bookstore, Inc.
Albee, Ernest. A Histry of English Utilitarianism. New York: Macmillan,

1902.
Alican, Necip Fikri. Mill’s Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart

Mill’s Notorious Proof. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994
Berger, Fred R. Happiness, Justice, and Freedom: The Moral and Political
Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
Crisp, Roger. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism.

London: Routledge, 2009.
Lyon’s David. Rights, Welfare and Mill’s Moral Theory. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1994.
Mill, John Stuart. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. 33 Volumes, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1994.
Ryan Alan. The Philosophy of John Stuart Mil. London: Macmillan, 1987.
Semmel, Bernard. John Stuart Mill and the Pursuit of Virtue. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1984.
Skorupski, John, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Activity Sheet
Activity 2
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
claims/reasons for or against; attempt to influence the reader to accept your view
In view of Bentham and Mill’s assertion of the greatest happiness of the greatest
number, do you think that animal rights and welfare should even be a concern in the
Philippines where millions of people below the poverty threshold are struggling to
have decent lives? Is the concern for animal rights and welfare a first world problem?
Assessment
Assessment 2
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
1. Are all pleasures commensurable? Can they be evaluated on a single scale?

Can some goods like friendship, be balanced against other goods like money?
2. Mill revises utilitarianism by arguing for “higher” pleasures. Which pleasures

are higher?
3. Mill proposes that higher pleasures are those preferred by the majority of
people. Do you agree that this is a good way of distinguishing between higher
and lower pleasures? Can a well-informed majority prefer higher pleasures?
4. Does utilitarianism questions individual rights? What if violation the civil

rights of minority increases the sum total of pleasure of the majority?
5. Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of
pain, and that all actions are directed toward pleasure?
6. Are all pleasures comparable, even objectionable pleasures? What if the

majority derives pleasure from being sexist?
7. Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans,

than to build a hospital because there are fewer sick people?
8. When is it justifiable to torture suspected criminals?

Rubrics for Essay

provides
examples
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

provides
examples
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

of ethical progression.It impair
examples on.
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

and have still
unrelated le.
examples.


concepts. ible.
Ethics
Chapter 3
NATURAL LAW
Chapter 3
The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence

Introduction
In October 2016, newspapers reported that Pantaleon Alvarez, Speaker of the House
of Representatives, was intending to draft a bill which would amend the country’s
Family Code, thereby allowing for the legalization of same-sex unions. This would
result in the possibility of two men together and two women together being identified
as a couple with rights guaranteed and protected by law. However, as one newspaper
reported revealed, even before anything could be formally proposed, other fellow
legislators had already expressed to the media their refusal to support any such
initiative
The reasons given in the news vary, ranging from the opinion that seeing two men
kiss is unsightly, to the statement that there is something “irregular” about belonging
to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community (LGBT), and to the judgment
that two people of the same sex is unnatural.
We are used to hearing people justify something that is done by making the appeal to
what they maintain is “natural”, and therefore “acceptable”. Likewise, people would
judge something as unacceptable on the basis that it is supposedly “unnatural”. Thus,
we are no longer surprised when we hear people condemn and label many different
things as “unnatural”: maybe receiving blood transfusions, eating meat, or as our
news report shows, engaging in sexual relations that might consider deviant. We also
realize that sometimes we might find ourselves astonished or perplexed as to what
different people might consider “unnatural”.
Specific Objectives
- Recognize how Thomas Aquinas made use of ancient Greek concepts to

provide a rational grounding to an ethical theory based on the Christian faith;
- Identify the natural law in distinction from, but also in relation to, the other
types of law mentioned by Aquinas eternal law, and divine law; and
- Apply the precepts of the natural law to contemporary moral concerns.
Duration
Chapter 3: Natural Law = 9 hours
(7 hours discussion; 2hours assessment)
Lesson
1 THOMAS AQUINAS
There have been various thinkers and systems of thought emerging throughout
history that could be said to present a natural law theory. Among them, the one we
will be focusing on is the medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. It has o be recognized,
however, that this natural law theory is part of a larger discussion, which is his moral
theory taken as a whole. This moral theory, in turn, is part of a larger project, which is
Aquinas’s vision of the Christian faith.
THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)

➢ Hailed as a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. A Dominican friar who
was the preeminent intellectual figure of the scholastic period of Middle
Ages, contributing to the doctrine of the faith more than any other figure of
his time. His Summa Theologiae, his magnus opus, is a voluminous work
that comprehensively discusses many significant points in Christian
theology. He was canonized in 1323.
THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

➢ Aquinas elaborated and maintained in all his works the promise right at the
center of Christian faith: that we are created by God in order to ultimately
return to Him.
➢ His magnus opus, Summa Theologiae follows the trajectory of this story; the
three parts are
1. Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge that our

limited human intellect cannot fully grasp Him, we nevertheless are
able to say something concerning His goodness, His might, and His
creative power.
2. It deals with man or the dynamic of human life. Salvation in only

possible through the presence of God’s grace.
3. It focuses on Jesus as our Savior.
THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS’ ETHICS

➢ Explore Aquinas’s discussion of other matters, such as, how;
o In our pursuit of happiness, we direct our actions toward

specific ends. Our emotions— “the passions”—are involved in
this process and therefore require the proper order if they are to
properly contribute to a good life.
o Actions are related to certain dispositions (“habits”) in a
dynamic way since our actions both arise from our habits and at
the same time reinforce them
o Develop either good or bad habits with a good disposition

leading us toward making immoral choices.
o Christian life, therefore, is about developing the capacities

given to us by God, into a disposition of virtue inclined toward
the good.
➢ Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that

directs our moral thinking. For Aquinas there is a sense of right and
wrong in us that we are obliged to obey. However, he also adds that
this must be informed, guided and ultimately grounded in an objective
bass of morality.
➢ So we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined to

develop and maintain a life virtue. However, these both require
content, so we need something more. We need a basis for our
conscience to be properly informed, and we need a clearer guidepost
on whether certain decisions we make leads us toward virtue or vice.
Being told that one should heed conscience or that one should try to be
virtuous, does very little to guide people as to what specifically should
be done in a given situation. There is a need for clearer basis of ethics,
a ground that will more concretely direct us sense of what is right and
wrong, this would be the natural law.
➢ We can recall how the ethical approach called divine command theory
urges a person toward unthinking obedience to religious precepts.
Given the problems of he simplistic approach to ethics, we can contrast
how the moral theory of Aquinas requires judicious use of reason. In
doing so, one’s sense of right and wrong would be grounded on
something stable: human nature itself.
Lesson
2 THE GREEK HERITAGE
NEOPLATONIC GOOD
➢ The central belief of Christian faith—God creates does not only means
the He brings about beings, but also means that He cares for, thus
governs, the activity of the universe and of every creature.
➢ Plato a Greek philosopher who was credited the notion of the idea of a
supreme and absolutely transcendent good has shaped and defined the
Christian Doctrine of Aquinas while inspired by divine revelation.
➢ It is the idea of the good—a good which is prior to all being and is
even the cause of all being.
➢ In his work The Republic, it is often supposed that Plato is trying to
envision the ideal society. But that plan is only part of a more
fundamental concern that animates the text, which is to provide an
objective basis and standard for striving to be moral. In other words, it
can be said that Plato was trying to answer questions such as “Why
should I bother trying to be good?” and “Why cannot be “good” be
whatever I say it is?” His answer was that the good is real and not
something that one can pretend to make up or ignore.
➢ Neoplatonists are scholars who decipher the wealth of ideas of Plato.
ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOMING
BEING
➢ Aristotle proposes four concepts which provide a way of understanding
any particular being under consideration or can be said to have four causes.
o Material cause- We recognize that any being we can see around is
corporeal, possessed of a certain materiality or physical “stuff”.
-A being is individuated- it becomes unique, individual being hat it
is- because it is made up of the particular stuff.
o Formal cause- The “shape” that makes a being a particular kind.
-We also realize that this material takes on a particular shape: so a
bird is different from a cat, which is different from a man.
o Efficient cause- Something which brings about the presence of
another being.
-One can also realize that this being does not simply pop up from
nothing, but comes from another being which is prior to it. Parents
beget a child. A mango tree used to be a seed that itself came from
an older tree.
o Final cause- It has an apparent end o goal.
-A seed to become a tree or a child to become an adult.
BECOMING
Aristotle also discussed the process of becoming or the possibility of change
that takes place in a being. A new pair of principles is introduced by him which we
can refer to as potency and act. A being may carry within itself certain potentials, but
these requires the being to actualized. A puppy is not yet a full grown dog. These
potencies are latent to the puppy and are actualized as the puppy grow and achieve
what it is supposed to be. The process of becoming – or change – can thus be
explained in this way. Understanding beings, ow they are and how they become or
what they could be, is significant Aristotelian contribution to the picture which was
given by Aquinas.
SYNTHESIS
The idea of transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in Aquinas in the
form of good and loving God, who Himself is the fullness of being good and of
goodness; as Aquinas puts it, God is that which essentially is and is essentially good.
So we recognize that all beings are only possible as participating in the first being,
which is God Himself. God’s act, like emanation of light, is the creation of beings.
In so far as God is that from which all beings come, it is ossible for us to speak
of Him as the first efficient cause. In so far as God is that toward which all beings
seek to return, it is possible for us to speak of him as the final cause. We see here the
beginning of the synthesis by noting how the Neoplatonic movement from and back
toward the transcendent is fused with the Aristotelian notion of causes.
It must be noted though, that this is not some mechanistic unthinking process.
It is God’s will and love that are the cause of all things; to every existing thing, God
wills some good. Creation therefore is the activity of the outpouring overflowing of
God’s goodness. Since each being n this way participates in God’s goodness, each
being is in.
However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the
goodness possessed by beings are imperfect. “For Aquinas, only God in the fullness
of His being and goodness is perfect; all other beings are participating in this
goodness, and are good to that extent, but are imperfect since they are limited in their
participation. But once again, God did not create us to simply be imperfect and to stay
that way as He leaves us alone. Instead God, in His infinite wisdom, directs how we
are to arrive at our perfection. The notion of divine providence refers to how beings
are properly ordered and even guided toward their proper end; end which is for them
to reach their highest good, is to return to the divine goodness itself.
God communicates to each being his perfection and goodness. Every creature
then strives to its own perfection; thus the divine goodness is the end of all actions.
All things come from God and are created by Him in order to return to Him.
We now need to recall that beings are created by God in a particular way. It is
not accidental how beings emerge into existence; each being is created as a
determinate substance, as a particular combination of form and matter. This applies to
all beings, including man. The particular form determines the materiality which
makes a being a certain kind of being’ the unique way that we have been created can
be called our nature.
This nature as participation in God’s goodness, is both good and imperfect at
the same time. Coming from God, it is good, but in its limitations, t has yet to be
perfected. This perfection means fulfilling our nature the best we can, thus realizing
what God had intended for us to be. We accomplish by fulfilling or actualizing the
potencies that are already present in our nature.
While all beings are created by God in order to return to Him, the way the
human being is directed toward God is unique. Given that we are beings with a
capacity for reason, our way of reaching God is by knowing and loving Him. It is of
key importance then that the presence of a capacity to reason is the prime
characteristic of the kind of beings we are and how the capacity for reason is the very
tool which God had placed in our human nature as the way toward our perfection ad
return to Him.
This applies not only to an individual human being, but also to all humankind.
But we should not forget how the whole community of being, which is the universe
itself, is directed towards its return to God. This is not, as mentioned earlier, an
unthinking process, but is the very work of divine reason itself or God’s will. We can
think, then, of the whole work of creation as divine reason governing a community
towards its end. Under the governance of the Divine, beings are directed as to how
their acts are to lead them to their end, which is to return to Him.
Lesson
THE ESSENCE AND VARIETIES
3 OF LAW
ESSENCE
➢ As a rational being we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we
are able to judge between possibilities and to choose to direct our actions
in one way or the other. Our actions are directed toward attaining ends or
goods that we desire.
➢ There are many possible desirable ends or goods, and we act such ways as
to pursue them. However, just because we think that a certain end is good
and is therefore desirable does not necessarily mean it is indeed good. That
is why reason is an important of the process. Acts are rightly directed
toward their ends by reason.
➢ COMMON GOOD- Considering what is good for the community as well

as our own good.
➢ LAW- The determination of the proper measure of our acts.
VARIETIES OF LAW
➢ Eternal Law- refers to what God wills for creation, how each participant in it
is intended to return to Him.
➢ Natural Law- refers to the natural inclination to its proper act and end.
➢ Human Law- refers to all instances wherein human beings construct and
enforce laws in the communities.
➢ Divine Law-refers specifically to the instances where we have precepts or
instructions that come from divine revelation.
NATURAL LAW
In Common With Other Beings

➢ In Aquinas view, we have to consider how we human beings are both unique
and at the same time participating in the community of the rest of creation.
o desire to preserves one’s own being
In Common With Other Animals

➢ In Aquinas view, we human beings has a desire to do with sexual intercourse
and the care of one’s offspring.
Uniquely Human
➢ We have a natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in the
society.
➢ Presented three inclinations as bases for moral valuation;
o Preserving the self is good
o Sexual inclination and the sexual act is part of human nature
o Being rational is what proper to man
➢ Aquinas tells us that there is priority among the powers of the soul, with the
intellectual directing and commanding our sensitive and nutritive capacities.
SUMMARY
In this chapter we have seen how the natural law theory is instrumental to
ethics that is rooted in the Christian faith. In elaborating this, we explored how
Aquinas had synthesized concepts of the Ancient Greeks to put forward an intellectual
ground that can overcome the imitations of simplistic divine command theory. Instead
we provided an objective basis for ethics: our own natural inclinations. Since these ae
given by God, they provide us the path toward our Perfection. Our natural inclinations
as enumerated by Aquinas include the desire to preserve our being, the sexual act and
its fecundity, and our use of reason.
Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations”

distributed by Rex Bookstore, Inc.
Davies, Bryan and Eleonore Stump 2014, “The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas.
Oxford:” Oxford University Press,.
MacDonald, Scott and Eleonore Stump, 1999,” Aquinas’s Moral Theory:

Essays in Honor of Normann Kretzmann. Ithaca”, Cornell University Press,.
Mclnery, Ralph. Ethica Thomistica 1997: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas

Aquinas. Revised, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press,.
Pope, Stephen J., 2002, “The Ethics of Aquinas”. Washington, D.C.,: Georgetown
University Press.
Activity Sheet
Activity 3
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
Post truth
We find the lines blurred between fact and fiction, between news report and
advertisements. We are accustomed to hearing and reading fake news. We are
inundated by figures and statistics that we can barely comprehend, much less confirm.
We are told to consider alternative facts and to not take seriously everything we might
hear our political leaders say. We read and revel in and then repost the most
hyperbolic and hysterical statements without asking ourselves whether we or anyone
should reasonably maintain this. We are now in the post-truth era.
This label of post truth means that we are more and more becoming habituated to
disregard or at least to devalue the truth. It is a tendency to think of truth as
insignificant in view of other concerns. This is a significant question in view of media
ethics, as practitioner in that field – “news reporters, writers, investigative journalists
and advertisers – ought to ask the question as to what extent the integrity of their work
might be compromised in view of other interests, such as popularity, profit, higher
viewership, or stronger sales. Yet this issue is not limited to people working in media.
It should be recognized as relevant by anyone who makes use of social media, caught
up in statements and exchanges of dubious worth. It should be considered by anyone
who wants to take seriously Aquinas’ claim that reason and a concern for truth are
what makes us human.
In view of Aquinas assertion that reason is what makes us uniquely human and that
being reasonable opens up both an epistemic concern for truth and also social
concern of being in relation with others, provide an assessment on the value or
disvalue of post truth such as fake news or alternative facts.
Assessment Sheet
ASSESSMENT 3
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
1. Are there other ways that the word natural is used to justify a particular way of behaving?
How do these approaches compare to the theory of Aquinas?
2. Can you think of human laws that are proper extensions of the natural law? Explain how
this is so. Can you think of other human law that violates the natural law? Explain how this is
so.
3. Are there other forms of harm – short of killing another person – that may be taken as a
violation of the natural inclination to preserve one’s being? Justify your answer.
4. Are there current scientific developments – for example, in biology – that challenge the
understanding of nature presented by Aquinas?
5. Is it possible to maintain a natural law theory without believing in the divine source? Why
or why not?
Rubrics for Essay

provides
examples
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

provides
examples
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

examples on.
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

and have still
unrelated le.
examples.


concepts. ible.
Ethics
Chapter IV
VIRTUE ETHICS
Chapter 4
Virtue Ethics
Introduction
Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the
quest to understand and live a life of moral character. This character-based approach
to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. So, virtue ethics helps us
understand what it means to be a virtuous human being.
Example Scenario
An online news accounts narrates key officials from both the legislative and executive
branches of the government voicing out their concern on the possible ill effects of too
much violence seen by children on television. The news estimates that by the time
children reach 18 years old, they have watched around 18,000 simulated murder
scenes. This prompted then Department of Education Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro to
launch the implementation guidelines of the Children’s Television Act of 1997 in
order to regulate television shows and promote more child friendly programs.
According to the news article, the DepEd held a series of consultations with various
stakeholders to address the issue of exposure of children to TV violence. They also
implemented the rules and guidelines for viewing safety and created a television
airtime for shows conducive to children.
Luistros claim seems to be based on a particular vision of childhood development.

Children at a young age have not yet achieved full personal growth and mental
development. This situation makes them particularly vulnerable to possible
undesirable effects of seeing violent images presented on television. When they see
violence on television on a regular basis, they may consider such violent acts as
normal and part of the daily occurrences in life. Much worse is that they might tend to
believe that such acts, since committed by adults are permissible. In this situation the
saying “Life imitates art” becomes uncomfortably true.
Mature individuals are aware that it is vital for children to go through the process of
building personality, identity or character. How does the continuous exposure to
violence on television affect the character that children develop? Is it possible that
constant watching of violence on television affect that children develop? Is it possible
that constant watching of violence on television result aggression among children?
What is the role of the child’s environment in her capacity to develop in to a good
individual? Perhaps it is best to look closely at how good moral character is developed
among individuals. What elements are involved in order to achieve this? One theory
that can possibly provide a comprehensive understanding of how an individual can
develop moral character is virtue of ethics.
Specific Objectives
1. Discuss the meaning and basic principle of virtue ethics.

2. Distinguish virtuous acts from non virtuous acts; and
3. Apply Aristotle ethics in understanding the Filipino character.
Duration
Virtue Ethics - 9 hours
(7 hours lecture; 2 hours assessment)
Lesson
HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE
1 PURPOSE
Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that takes the notion of virtue (often conceived
as excellence) as fundamental. Virtue ethics is primarily concerned with traits of
character that are essential to human flourishing, not with the enumeration of duties
VIRTUE is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a
matter of developing the virtuous character of person.
• Focused on the formation of one’s character brought about by determining and
doing virtuous acts.
• The two major thinkers of Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle , had
discourses concerning virtue.
• Aristotle book entitled Nicomachean Ethics is the first comprehensive and
programmatic study of virtue of Ethics.
• Aristotle discourse of ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality
and conception of the good. Both Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the
highest faculty of a person and having such characteristic enable of a person
to realize the very purpose of her existence.
• But at the end they differ in their appreciation of reality and nature, which in
turn results in their contrasting stand on what the ethical principle should be.
• For Plato the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience, but
somehow grasped by one’s intellect.
• For Aristotle REAL is found within our everyday encounter with objects in
the world. What makes nature intelligible is its character of having both form
of matter.
• The truth and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not
independent of our experience.
• When one speaks of the truth for example how beautiful Juan Luna’s
Spoliarium is, she cannot discuss its beauty separately from the particular
painting itself. Same is true with understanding of good.
• One sees the ethical theory of Aristotle as engaging the good in our day to day
living.
HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

• Aristotle – “every act that a person does is directed toward a particular
purpose, aim on what the Greeks called TELOS.
• There’s a purpose why one does something.
• Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good. One eats for the purpose of
the good that it gives sustenance to the body.
• Chosen career aiming for a good that is to provide a better future for her
family.
• A person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her.
• Even a drug user thinks that substance abuse will cause her good
• Drug is good, but drug addict would want to believe that such act is good.
• For Aristotle Good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts
seek to achieve.
• One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and
correspondingly each of theses activities has different aims.
• Aristotle is aware that one does an act not only to achieve a particular purpose
, but believes purpose can be utilized for a higher goal activity. Which can be
used to achieve an ever higher purpose and so on.
• When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by
the teacher, she does this for the purpose of being able to remember the
lessons of the course.
• This purpose of remembering, becomes an art to achieve a higher aim which is
to pass the examinations given by the teacher.
• It is important to Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of goals that
the different acts produce in order for a person to distinguish which actions are
higher than other.
Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good
of man.
 FIRST THE HIGHEST GOOD OF A PERSON MUST BE FINAL

o As a final end it is no longer utilized for the sake of arriving at a much
higher end.
o The purpose of remembering lesson in the course , that is why one
writes down notes, is not the final end because it is clear that such
purpose is aimed at achieving a much higher goal.
 SECOND THE ULTIMATE TELOS OF A PERSON MUST BE
SELF SUFFICIENT.
o Satisfaction in life is arrived at once this higherst good is attained.
o Nothing else is sought after and desired, once this self-sufficient goal is
achieved, since this is already considered as the best possible good in
life.
o The goal of remembering the lesson in the course is not yet the best
possible good because a person can still seek for other more satisfying
goals in her life.
HIGHEST GOAL FOR ARISTOTLE

o What goal is both final and self sufficient? It is interesting to note that
for Aristotle, the question can only be adequately answered by older
individuals because they have gone through enormous and challenging
life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of knowledge.
o Other individuals would agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate
good of a man is happiness or for the Greeks, EUDAIMONIA means
happiness (Greeks)
o Wealth, Power, and Pleasures are not chosen for themselves but for the
sake of being a means to achieve happiness. If one accumulates wealth,
for example, she would want to have not just richness but also power
and other desirable thing as well such as honor and pleasure.
o Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient aim that one can
aspire for. No amount of wealth or power can be more fulfilling than
having achieved the condition of happiness.
o Not for richness or fame.
o Even though older individuals agree that happiness is the highest end
and good that human aspire for.
o For Aristotle what defines human beings is her function or activity of
reason. This function makes her different from the rest of beings.
o Dancer, Waiter, Doctor etc.
Lesson
2 VIRTUE AS EXCELLENCE
Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability

to function according to reason and to perform an activity well of
excellency. This excellent way of doing things is called VIRTUE.
WHAT EXACTLY MAKES A HUMAN BEING EXCELLENT
One needs to understand the very structure of a person’s soul which

must be directed by her rational activity in an excellent way.
For Aristotle the human soul is divided into two parts
Irrational element- this part of the man is not realm, where virtue is exercised
because as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason.
It consists the Vegetative and Appetitive Aspects
• The VEGETATIVE ASPECTS function as giving nutrition and providing

activity of physical growth in person.
• The APPETETIVE ASPECTS works as a desiring faculty of man, that

naturally runs counter to a reason and most of the soul. Sexual Impulse for
example is strong in person that one tends to ignore reasonable
Rational Faculty- man exercise excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly apply
the use of reason in this part.
o Where a person can attain excellence in the intellectual faculty
o Attains through teaching
o This faculty is further divided into two aspects
Moral- which concerns the act of doing and
Intellectual- which concerns the act of knowing.
 One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual
faculty of the soul, excellence is attained through teaching.
 Two ways by which one can attain intellectual excellence: PHILOSOPHIC

AND PRACTICAL
• PHILOSOPHIC WISDOM- deals with attaining knowledge about the
fundamental principles and truths that govern the universe (ex. General
theory on the origin of things) Understand meaning of life
• PRACTICAL WISDOM- Excellence in knowing the right conduct in

carrying out a particular act. In other words one can attain a wisdom that
can provide us with a guide on how to behave in our daily lives.
o The condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the

intellectual aspect of the soul; this situation does not make her into a morally
good individual.
o For SOCRATES moral goodness is already within the realm of intellectual

excellence.
o Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts.
o For ARISTOTLE however having intellectual excellence does not necessarily

mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good.
o Knowing the good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one
needs to accomplish.
Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving two
kinds of virtues: moral and intellectual.
A morally virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good
and does the right actions. Moral virtue is acquired through habit.
Being a good basketball player for example involves constant training
and endless hours of shooting and dribbling the ball in the right way
until one habitually does the right same with….
A moral person habitually chooses the good and consistently does

good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing the good
that a person is able to form her character.
Lesson
MORAL VIRTUE AND
3 MESOTES
MESOTES ,the meaning of the center is a major element in the definition of

human virtues in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. On the other hand, the
principle of mesotes often is described as powerful.
Developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experiences.

Knowledge is not inherent to a person.
Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy.
One needs to develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical
reason in her daily life.
In attaining practical wisdom, she may initially make mistakes on how reason
is applied to a particular moral choice or action. But through these mistake,
she will be able to sustain practical wisdom to help steer another’s ability to
know morally right choices and action.
This is why when it came to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in
the community.
Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her
appropriate action in a manner tt is neither excessive nor deficient. In other
words, virtue is the middle or the intermediary point in between extremes. One
has function in a state that her personality manifests the right amount of
feelings, pasions and ability for a particular act.
Generally, feelings and passions are neutral which means that, in themselves,
they are neither morally right nor wrong.
But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in the
degree of their application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an
offensive remark but it is not right to get angry at an offensive remark but it is
not right to get angry at everyone just because you were offended by someone.
A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle the task of targeting the
mean is always difficult because very situation is different from one another.
As pointed out by Aristotle the mean is simply into and understanding the situation
and assessing properly every particular detail relevant to the determination of the
mean once can be angry with someone but the degree and aid of reason dictates how
humans should show different anger toward a child and a mature individual.
• MESOTES determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient.
In relation to the news article, the government and its agencies responsible for
protecting and assisting the young in their personal development should act in view of
the middle measure, the government could have dismissed the issue or could have
banned television shows portraying violence.
But such extremes censure the citizen’s freedom of expression and artistic
independence, which can result in another issue. Wisely the government acted on the
side of the middle measure by going through a series of consultation to address the
issue of television violence-implementing the rules and guidelines for viewing safety,
dedicating 15% of television airtime for child friendly shows, and enforcing a
television violence rating code that tool into account the sensibilities of children. It
seems that the government acted in a manner that is not deficient and excessive.
MORAL VIRTUE
1ST the condition arrived

at by a person who has a
character identified out of
her habitual exercise of
particular action. One’s
character is seen as a
growth in terms of the
continuous preference for
the good.
2nd in moral virtue the

action done that normally
manifests feelings and passions is chosen because it is the middle. The middle does
not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion by which these feelings or
passions should be expressed. Aristotle adds that the middle is relative to us. This
does not imply that mesotes totally depends on what the person identifies as the
middle. But Aristotle middle is not relative to the person but to the situation and the
circumstance that one is in. This means that in choosing the middle, one is looking at
the situation and not at oneself in identifying the proper way that feelings and
passions should be dispensed.
3rd the rational faculty that serves as a guide for the proper identification of the middle
is practical wisdom. The virtuous person learns from her experiences and therefore
develops that capacity to know the proper way of carrying out her feelings, passions
and develops the capacity to know the proper, specifically practical wisdom aid in
making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good.
A moral person in this sense is also someone whose is wise. Aristotle clarifies further
that not all feelings, passions, and actions have a middle point. When one murder
someone, there is nothing excessive or deficient in the act: murder is still murder.
Further , there is no intermediary for Aristotle in the act because there is no proper
way that such act can be committed.
Aristotle also provides example of particular virtues and the corresponding excesses
and deficiencies of these. This table shows some of the virtues and their vices.
EXCESS MIDDLE DEFICIENCY

Impulsiveness Self-Control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Profanity Liberality Meanness
In the table Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in between the
vices of being coward and reckless. Cowardice is a deficiency in terms of feelings and
passions. This means that one lacks the capacity to muster enough bravery of carrying
herself appropriately in a given situation. Recklessness, on the other hand is an excess
in ones feelings and passions. In this regard one acts with a surplus of guts that she is
being to act daringly enough but able to weigh up possible implications of such act
that she precedes with caution.
Copleston, SJ, Frederick. A history of Philosophy: Greece and Rome. Vol. 1 , New
York Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc 1993
Nussbaum, Martha C. The Fragality of Goodness. New Yourk: Cambridge

University Press, 1986.
The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes, New York:

Cambridge University
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Activity Sheet
Activity 4
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
Direction: Answer comprehensively.
1. What is moral virtue? What is Intellectual Virtue?

2. What is the difference between moral and intellectual virtue? Explain
3. Identify some Filipino traits categorize each as virtue (middle) or vices (excess
or deficiency) place them in the table.
4. How is a person’s character formed according to Aristotle.
5. Who do you think possesses a moral character in your community? Explain
your answer.
Assessment Sheet
Assessment 4
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
Part 1. Write the correct words in the spaces provided
1. ___________________is the ethical framework that is concerned with

understanding the good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of
person.
2. ___________________ is the first comprehensive and programmatic study of
virtue of Ethics.
3. For ______________the real is outside the realm of any human sensory
experience, but somehow grasped by one’s intellect .
4. “Every act that a person does is directed toward a particular purpose, aim ow
what the Greeks called_________________
5. Other individuals would agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate good of
a man is happiness or for the Greeks, _____________means happiness (Greeks)
6. In Irrational Elements _____________works as a desiring faculty of man, that

naturally runs counter to a reason and most of the soul. Sexual Impulse for
example is strong in person that one tends to ignore reasonable.
7. The ____________function as giving nutrition and providing activity of
physical growth in person.
8. ________________ man exercise excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly
apply the use of reason in this part.
9. ________________which concerns the act of doing and
10. __________________which concerns the act of knowing.
11. For _________________ moral goodness is already within the realm of
intellectual excellence
12. For __________________ however having intellectual excellence does not
necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good.
13. ______________________ ,the meaning of the center is a major element in the
definition of human virtues in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.
14. 14.______________________Excellence in knowing the right conduct in
carrying out a particular act. In other words one can attain a wisdom that can
provide us with a guide on how to behave in our daily lives
15. ______________________ deals with attaining knowledge about the
fundamental principles and truths that govern the universe (ex. General theory
on the origin of things) Understand meaning of life
Part II. Put the case for or against your view or idea by giving evidence for your
Sexual ethics is a study of a person’s sexuality and the manner by which human
sexual conduct must be exercised. There are many instances where sexual behavior
must be observed in order to properly nurture good interpersonal relationships. Thus,
sexual ethics becomes a vital subject that must be studied by everyone. One particular
topic being discussed within sexual ethics is the issue of pornography. Pornography is
the explicit manifestation of sexual matter presented in the different forms of media.
Pornography normally shows different illustration of nudity and sexual acts in print,
videos, and social media outfits. Some people view pornography as immoral, citing
how it treats persons as mere sexual objects for pleasure. Some people on the other
hand, view pornography as a personal way of displaying ones freedom of expression
which must be respected by everyone. What is your view on this?
Perhaps, virtue ethics as a framework for moral valuation, can be utilized in assessing
ones sexual behavior specifically with regard to the person fondness for pornography.
If virtue ethics aims for the development of the persons good character, does watching
pornographic materials reflective of such a character? Is there a virtue that is
produced by the behavior of patronizing pornography? What do you think will happen
with regard to the character of a person if one habituates the act of watching
pornography? Virtue ethics challenges the person to look at ones habits concerning
sexual behavior. What would possibly be affected by such behavior is the person’s
appreciation and valuation of human relationship.
1. Go online and list down various source that can help you understand the
different issues on pornography. Identified the topics being discussed by these
sources.
2. Discuss the possible implication (positive or negative) of patronizing of
pornography to the development of one’s character.
3. Discuss a different topic within the scope of sexual ethics and explain how this
might affect the development of one’s virtuous character.
Rubrics for Essay

provides
examples
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

provides
examples
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

examples on.
which supports
the topic with
wit and
analysis

and have still
unrelated le.
examples.


concepts. ible.
Ethics
Chapter VI
MAKING INFOMED
DECISIONS
Chapter V
Making Informed Decisions
Introduction
What is the value of a college-level class in Ethics? We have been introduced to four
major ethical theories of frameworks: utilitarianism, natural law ethics, Kantian
Deontology and virtue ethics. None of them is definitive nor final. What then is the
use of studying them? Each represents the best attempts of the best thinkers in history
to five fully thought out to the answers to the question “what ought I do so?” this
quest has not reach its final conclusion; instead, it seems that the human condition of
finitude will demand that we continue to grapple with these question. The story of
humanity appears to be the never ending search for what it means to be fully human in
the face of moral choices.
The preceding chapters clarified several notions: 1. These question of what the right
thing to do is and why are question that all human beings-regardless of race, age,
socioeconomic class, gender, culture, educational attainment, religious affiliation, or
political association will have to ask at one point or another in their lives. 2. Neither
the laws nor rules of one’s immediate community or of wider culture or religious
affiliation can sufficiently answer these question, especially when different duties,
culture and religion intersect and conflict. 3. Reason has a role to play in addressing
these questions, if not in resolving them. This last element, reason , is the power that
identifies the situation in which rules and principles sometimes conflict with one
another. Reason hopefully will allow one to finally make the best decision possible in
a given situation of moral choice.
Specific Objectives
• Identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral decision
making
• Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions
• Apply the ethical theories of framework on moral issues involving the self-
society and the non-human environment
Duration
Chapter 6: Making Informed Decisions = 9 hours

(7 hours discussion; 2 hours
assessment)
Lesson
1 The Moral Agent And Context
Along the same vein as Kant, some philosophers believe personhood requires moral
agency, the capacity to make moral decisions based on the perception of right and
wrong. Stated simply, it's the ability to judge between good and bad, moral and
immoral. Building on this definition, a moral agent is a being who is conscious of the
concepts of right and wrong.
Chapter 1 pointed out one of the capacities reason provides us – It enable us to

distinguish between human situations that have a genuinely moral character from
those that are non-moral (for amoral). It shows us that
• Aesthetic consideration and questions of etiquette are important facets of
human life, but they do not necessarily translate into genuine ethical or moral
value.
• Reason also reminds us that the distinctions are not always easy to neither
identify nor explain.
• The choice of clothing that one is to wear in general seems to merely question
of aesthetics and thus one is taste.
• In many urban centers in the Philippines in the first century, people wear a
variety of clothing style and such a situation does not seem to attract attention.
• Some cultures what a woman wears may bring upon harsh punishment to her
according to the community rule Afghanistan in the 1990s was ruled by the
Taliban and women were expected to wear the full body burqa: a woman
caught in public even the small area of her body exposed will be flogged
severely.
• Mistake can be frowned upon by members of one human society or another
but need not merit the severest of punishments or penalty.
• Ethics is clearly concerned with the right way to act in relation to other human
beings and toward self. How she takes care of herself versus how she treats
herself badly , substance abuse , suicide etc.
• Is a question of ethical clue that is concerned mainly with her own person.
• The second level where moral valuation takes place is societal. Society in this
context means ones immediate community (one’s neighborhood, barangay, or
town) the larger sphere (one’s province, region, or country) or the whole
global village defined as the interconnection of the different nations of the
world.
• All level of society involves some kind of culture which may be loosely
described as the way of life of a particular community of people at a given
period of time.
• Culture is a broad term it may include the beliefs and practices a certain
group of people considered valuable and can extend to such realms as art
(music, literature, arts and performance)laws (injunctions against taboo
practices) fields of knowledge (e.g. scientific, technological and medical
beliefs and practices at a given point in time) and customs of a community.
Ethics serves to guide one through the potentially confusing thicket of an individual’s
interaction wither her wider world of social roles.
THE MORAL AGENT AND CONTEXT
The one who is tasked to think about what is right and why it is so and so to choose
and do so, is individual human. Who is this individual who must engage herself in
ethical thought and decision making? Who one is in the most fundamental sense is
another major topic in the act of philosophizing.
Greeks has a famous saying for it: “Epimeleia he auto” usually translated into English
as “know thyself”. In response to this age-old philosophical challenge the Filipino
philosopher RAMON C. REYES (1935-2014) writing in his essay Man and
Historical Action explained the “who he is” is a cross point. By this he means that
one’s identity, who one is or who I am, is product of many forces and events that
haened outside of one choosing. Reyes identifies four cross points the physical, the
interpersonal, the social and historical.
Biography
RAMON C. REYES (1935-2014)
❖ attended the Ateneo de Manila
University in Quezon City
❖ Bachelor of Arts degree in
1956
❖ PhD in Philosophy from the
University Catholique de
Louvain in Belgium 1965
❖ Techer in ADMU from 1965 to
2013 Ethics and Modern
Philosophy and Contemporary
Philosophy
❖ Most Outstanding Teacher
Awarded by Metrobank 1987
❖ Book- Ground and Norm of
Morality; Ethics for College
Students published in 1988.
PHYSICAL EVENTS
• Past material factors that one did not have the choice in. You are member of
the species Homo Sapiens and therefore possess the capacities and limitation
endemic to human being everywhere.
• Inherited by genetic material of both biological parents.
• All of these are given they have happened or are still happening whether you
want it or not.
• You did not choose to be a human being nor to have this particular set of
biological parents nor to be born in and grow up in such physical environment.
• Filipinos born in archipelago , tropical climate, with specific flora and fauna
which shape human life in this country to a profound degree
• Individual is also a product of an interpersonal cross point of many events and
factors outside of ones choosing. One did not choose her own parent and yet
personality, character traits and her overall way of doing things and thinking
about things have all been shaped by the character of her parents and how they
brought her up.
• A third cross point for Reyes is the societal “who one is” is shaped by ones
society. The term society here pertains to all the elements of the human
groups- as opposed to the natural environment- that one is a member of.
“Culture” in its varied aspects is included here.
• The fourth cross point Reyes names is the historical which is simply the events
that one’s people has undergone. The effect of colonization that affects how
Philippines society has been formed and how Philippine culture has
developed. This effect in turn shapes the individual who is a member of the
Philippine society.
• WHO ONE IS also a project for one’s self.
• We can the ethics plays a big role in this existential challenge of forming one’s
self.
CULTURE AND ETHICS
❖ Culture dictates what is right or wrong for an individual. As people saying

when in Rome do as the Romans do by ST. AMBROSE.
❖ This quote implies that one culture is inescapable that is one has to look into
the standards of her society to resolve all her ethical questions with finality.
Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty stereotypes, especially since one
may be hard put to think if any other culture does not exhibit such traits.
❖ We hear claim from time to time that “Americans are individualistic; Filpinos
are communal,” supposed difference that grounds for some people radically
different sets of moral values.
❖ But one may ask is there really any radical difference between one cultures
moral reasoning or another?
❖ The American Philosopher JAMES RACHELS (1941-2003) provided a clear
argument against the validity of cultural relativism.
❖ CULTURAL RELATIVISM- the idea that a person beliefs, values and
practices should be understood based on that persons own culture rather than
be judged against the criteria of another.
❖ Also Rachels defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that there is
no such thing as objective truth in the realm of morality. The argument of this
position is that since different cultures have different moral codes, then there
is no one correct moral code that all cultures must follow.
❖ The implication is that each culture has its own standards of right or wrong.its
culture confined within the culture.
o FIRST if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even
criticize the practices or beliefs of another culture anymore as long as
the culture thinks that what is doing is correct.
o SECOND if cultural relativism was correct then one cannot even
criticize the practices or beliefs of ones culture. If that is the case, the
black South African citizen under the system of Apertheid a policy of
racial segregation that privileges the dominant race in the society,
could not criticize that official state position.
o THIRD if cultural relativism was correct then one cannot even accept
that moral progress can happen. If that is the case then the fact that
many societies now recognize women’s rights and children’s rights
does not necessarily represent a better a situation than before when we
societies refused to recognize that women and children had rights.
❖ Rachel’s ends his article on cultural relativism by nothing that someone can
recognize and respect cultural differences and still maintain the right to
criticize beliefs and practices that she thinks are wrong, if she performs proper
rational deliberation.
RELIGION AND ETHICS
There are many religions in

the world. Christianity,
Islam, Hinduism, and
Buddhism are four of
largest religious groups in
the world at present based
on population. The
Philippines is
predominantly Roman
Catholic, yet many other
religions continue to
flourish in the archipelago.
Beyond all the differences,
however, other religions
continue to flourish in the archipelago. Beyond all the differences however other
religions continue to flourish in the archipelago.
Many religions followers assume that what their religion teaches can be found either
in their sacred scripture (eg BIBLE for CHRISTIANS, the Qur’ans for Muslim or
body of writings (eg Vedas including Upanishads and other text for HINDUS; the Tao
Te Ching , Chuang-tzu and other Taoist classics for Taoist or in other form .
 Religious teachings is relative to the individuals particular situation

(implying no objective and universal truth about the situatedness of the
reader. This implies that the moral agent in question must still, In full
responsibility, challenge herself to understand using her own powers of
rationality, but with full recognition on her own situatedness and what is
religious authorities claim their religion teaches.
 Second one must determine what justifies the claim of a particular

religious teaching when it commands its followers on what they “ought to
do” whether in general or in specific situations. Relevant to this is Plato
philosophical question in his dialogue Euthyphro which was mentioned in
an earlier chapter: is the pious loved by the gods because it is loved by the
gods? “Philosophers have modified this question into a moral version:
when something is “morally good,” is it because it is good in itself and that
is why God commands it, or is it good because God simply say so.
Lesson
2 MORAL DELIBERATION
There is a big difference between a young childs reasoning on the right thing
to do and the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This
necessary growth, which is a maturation in moral reasoning, has been the focus of
study of many theorist. One of them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence
Kohlberg (1927-1987) who theorized the moral development happens in six stages
which he divided into three levels.
a. FIRST STAGE – PRE-CONVENTIONAL in this stage there is two

level
1. Obedience Vs. Avoidance and Punishment

o it corresponds to how infants and young children think
o Reasoning is centred on the consequences of action.
o Obedience vs avoidance of punishments to a young child’s mind.
2. Reasoning and learns to act what she thinks (Naively Egoistical)

o If an action is good they can avoid punishment ; if its bad it
lead to punishment
o Pleasure and Punishment
b. SECOND STAGE CONVENTIONAL In this age in which older
children, adolescent and young adults learn to conform to the expectation
of the society.
3. Good boy and Good Girl Orientation

o One follows conventions of her group.
o Begins to act according to what the larger group she belongs to
expects of her.
o The general tendency at this age is to conform fist to the values of
ones immediate group , such as her family playmates or later on
barkada.
4. Law and Social Order

o When a person relizes that following the dictates od her society
is not just good for herself but more importantly it is necessary
for the existence of society itself.
o The individual at this stage values most the laws, rules, and
regulation of her society and thus her moral reasoning is shaped
by dutifulness to the external standards set by society.
c. POST CONVENTIONAL – in this stage is divided into two stages

represents individual realization that the ethical principles she has
rationally arrived at take precedence over even the rules or conventions
that her society dictates.
5. Legalistic Social Contract
o Namely agreement that rational agents have arrived at whether explicitly

or implicitly in order to serve what can be considered the common good
are what one ought to honor and follow.
o This notion of common good is conventional in the sense that the moral
agent binds herself to what this theoretical community of rational agents
has identified as morally desirable, whether the agent herself will benefit
from doing so or not.
o What is good or right is what honours the social contract; what
contradicts it is bad.
6. Universal ethical Principles
o Perform action based on universal ethical principles that one has

determined by herself. One realizes that all conventions (laws,
rules and regulations) of society are only correct if they are based
on these universal ethical principles.
o Full maturity post conventional thinking since this stage
recognizes that in the end the question of what one ought to do
goes back to the individual moral agent and her own rationality.
The significance of studying different ethical theories and framework becomes

clear only to the individual who has achieved or is in the process of achieving, moral ,
maturity.
FEELINGS IN MORAL DELIBERATION
Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic perspective as

having no place in properly executed moral decision. This prejudice, however, needs
to be re-examined thoroughly. Although some emotion or feelings can derail one from
a clear minded decision in an ethical situation, it is also not possible that human
choice can be purged of all feelings; the moral agent, after all, is neither robot nor
computer.
▪ Aristotle points out that moral virtye goes beyond the mere act of intellectual
identifying the right thing to do. Instead , it is the condition of ones character
by which the agent is able to manage her emotions or feelings. Note that
Aristotle does not say “Remove all feelings”
▪ Tulak ng bibig kabig ng dibdib is the popular Filipino saying, the mouth says
one thing but the heart drives you to do another thing.
▪ There can be a disconnect between intellectual knowledge of the good and the
actual ability of an individual to perform accordingly.
The responsible moral agent then as a supposedly “dispassionate” moral decision

maker is an unrealistic idea. The passions or feelings do not necessarily detract
from making an informed moral decision. One can even argue that making a
moral decision , because is all about what she values, cannot but involved her
most serious feelings. What she must do is to educate and to cultivate.
MORAL PROBLEMS
We must first
understand that there are
different types of moral
problems each one
requiring a particular set
of rational deliberations.
We may attempt to
construct an outline of
what we ought to do
when confronted with
the potential ethical
issue.
a. FIRST STEP- determine the level of involvement in the case at hand. Do
we need to make moral decision in a situation that needs action on our part?
Or are we trying to determine the right thing to do in a particular situation
being discussed? In the latter situation , we may be making a moral
judgement on a particular case. Being moral agent specifically refers to the
latter situation we must therefore identify which activity we are engaged in,
whether we are making a judgement on a case that we are not involved.
b. SECOND STEP- after ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral
situation, we then need to make sure of the facts. The first fact to establish
is whether we are faced with a moral situation or not. Are we truly
confronted with a genuinely moral situation, or one that merely involves
judgement in the level of aesthetics or of etiquette.
c. THIRD STEP- identify all the people who may potentially be affected by
the application of a moral situation or by our concrete choice of action.
These people are called the stakeholders in the particular case. Identifying
these stakeholders forces us to give consideration to people aside from
ourselves.
After establishing the facts and identifying the stakeholders and their concerns in the
matter, we must now identify the ethical issue at hand. These are several types of
ethical problems or issues.
a. The first one is a situation in which we need to clarify whether a certain action
is morally right or wrong.
b. The second one involves determining whether a particular action in question
can be identified with a generally accepted ethical or unethical action. E.g
death penalty, is death penalty tantamount to murder?
c. The third one is to presence of an ethical dilemma. Dilemma are ethical
situations in which there are competing values that seem to have equal worth.
The problem can be concerned either with a choice between two competing
moral goods or between two evils.
The final step of course is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or
decision whether in judging what ought to be done in a given case or in coming up
with a concrete action she must actually perform. Real ethical decisions are often very
difficult enough to make and for so many different reason. The responsible moral
individual, however must forge on realizing full well that cultivating ones capacity
for mature moral choice is continuously journey in her life. A moral individual is
always a human being whose intellect remains finite and whose passions remain
dynamic and who is always placed in situations that are unique.
THE VALUE OF STUDYING ETHICAL THEORIES OR FRAMEWORKS
 May serve as guide points given that there are the best attempts to understand
morality that the history of human thought has to offer, in ones quest to
answer the twin question of “what ought I do? What ought I to do so?
 UTILITARIANISM- Puts every single stakeholders at par with everyone
else, with no one being worth more than any other. Rich or poor, man or
woman, young or old everyone has a much worth as anyone else, values the
“common good” compare to any other ethical frameworks we have covered.
 NATURAL LAW-puts more emphasis on the supposed objective, universal

nature of what is to be considered morally good, basing its reasoning on the
theorized existence of a “human nature”. This theory has the advantage of
both objectivity and a kind of intuitiveness. The latter pertains to the
assumption that whatever is right is what feels right, that is.
 KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY- put the premium on rational will, freed from
all other consideration as the only human capacity that can determine ones
moral duty. Kant focus on ones autonomy as constituted of what one can
consider as moral law that is free from all other ends and inclinations-
including pain and pleasure as well as conformity to the rules of the group.
What the responsible moral individual must instead perform is to continuously test the
cogency and coherence of the ethical theory or framework in question against the
complexity of the concrete experience at hand.
In the following section, let us try to show the strengths and drawbacks of each theory
or framework in application to the different realms of human action: the personal the
social (both local and global) and the environmental.
Lesson
SELF, SOCIETY, AND
3 ENVIRONMENT
INDIVIDUAL/SELF
In the realm of the self, as noted earlier, one has to pay attention not just on how deals
with oneself, but also on how one interacts with other individuals in personal
relations. One may respond to the demand for an ethically responsible “care for the
self” by making full use of the four ethical theories or frameworks.
JOHN STUART MILLS UTILITARIANISM, though seemingly a hedonistic

theory given its emphasis on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, elevates the
human element above the animalistic and above the merely selfish.
Mill builds on the earlier version of utilitarianism, the one espoused by
JEREMY BENTHAM, which first posited that what makes an action good is
that it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Not just in number but in kind and not just for him/her but for everyone
affected by her acts.
THOMAS AQUIANAS
NATURAL LAW THEORY – states that as its first natural inclination the innate
tendency that all human beings share with all other existing things; namely the natural
propensity to maintain oneself in one’s existence. Any action therefore that sustains
and cultivates ones biological or physical existence is to be deemed good while all
action lead to destruction of ones existence is to be called bad or evil.
▪ Healthy life and that one avoids all things that may hurt one or cause on harm.
▪ Part of human nature is to promote the truth and cultivate a harmonious life in
the society with other humans.
▪ To live peaceful social life is part of ones responsibility.
▪ Aquinas teaches that a person cannot remain within her own selfish desires
since doing so might lead her to harm herself to dispense with the truth or to
destroy harmony in her community. Thus the moral philosophy of Aquinas
calls on a person to go beyond what she thinks she wants and to realize instead
what her innermost nature inclines her to do, which is the promotion of life of
the truth, and of harmonious coexistence with others.
KANTS DEONTOLOGY
▪ Celebrates the rational faculty of the moral agent, which sets it above merely
sentient beings. Kant principle of universability challenge the moral agent to
think beyond her own predilections and desires and to instead consider what
everyone ought to do.
▪ His principle of humanity as end in itself teaches one to always treat humanity
whether in her own self or in any other individual, as the end or goal of all
human actions and never merely as the means.
▪ Kant foes beyond simply telling people not use others as instruments. There is
nothing intrinsically wrong with using a human being as a means or a tool for
ones own purposes because human interaction is not possible without that
happening.
▪ Kant principle of autonomy teaches us that no one else can tell her what she
ought to do in a particular situation; the highest authority is neither the king
nor the general nor the pope. The highest authority that which is self
legislating in the realm of moral law, is none other than the rational individual
herself.
▪ One must always treat humanity, whether in oneself or in any other , always as
end in itself,”
ARISTOTLE VIRTUE OF ETHICS

❖ Ones ethical or moral responsibility to heself is one of self cultivation.
Aristotle is quite forgiving when it comes to individual actions, knowing full
well the difficulty of “hitting the mark” in a given moral situation.
❖ One may make mistakes from time to time but in the end the important
question is whether th person is learned from such mistakes, then the person
has not become EUDAIMON or a happy (that is flourishing)
❖ Finally this theory teaches us one must always find and act on the mesotes,
whether in treating oneself or any other human beings. This mesotes points to
the complexity of knowing what must be done in a specific moral situation.
SOCIAL LIFE IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT AND IN THE GLOBAL

VILLAGE
One’s membership in any society brings forth the demands of communal life in terms
of the group rules and regulations.
❖ It made up of many ethno linguistic groups, each with its own possibly unique
culture and set of traditions. The demands of the nation state as seen in the
laws of the land sometimes clash with the traditions of indigenous culture, one
example is the issue of land ownership when ancestral land is at stake, can
members of an indigenous group lay claim to a land that they do not
technically own because they do not have a legal title for it?
❖ Mills utilitarian will always push the greatest happiness principle as the
prime determinant of what can be considered as good action, whether in the
personal sphere or in the societal realm.
❖ Thomas Aquianas on the other hand in his natural law theory has a clear
conception of the principles that should guide the individual in her actions that
affect her larger society, human life , the care and education of children and
promotion of truth, and harmonious social living.
❖ Immanuel Kant arues for the use of the principles of universalizabilitu and of
humanity as end Itself to form a persons autonomous notion of what she ought
to do. These principles an and should apply directly to the construction of
ethical duty in ones social life.
❖ Aristotle prescribe mesotes as the guide of all the actions that a person has to
take even in her dealing with the larger community of people, such as
liberality, justice, magnificence, friendliness and rightful indignation suggest
that they are socially oriented.
❖
THE NON-HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
❖ In case of UTILITARIANISM some scholars point out that his hedonistic

doctrine focuses on the sovereignty of pleasures and pains in human decision
making should extend into other creatures that can experience pleasure and
pains; namely, animals.
❖ Animals themselves cannot become moral agents because they do not seem to
have reason and free will.
❖ Some would therefore argue that since the greatest happiness principles cover
the greatest number of creatures that experience pleasure and pain, then that
number should include animals. Therefore though only humans can make
moral decisions, animal ethics, proponents argue that humans should always
take into account the potential pleasure or pain that they may inflict on
animals.
❖ KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY focused on the innate dignity of the human

being as possessing reason , I can be argued that one cannot possibly
universalize maxims that in the end will lead to an untenable social existence.
Can one accept the following maxims that in the end will lead to an untenable
social existence? Can one accept the following maxim as something that
everyone ought to follow:
❖ THOMAS AQUINAS may not necessarily talk about the physical

environment and human moral responsibility to it as such but one can try to
infer from his philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they
do not produce a harmonious peaceful society. One can argue that neglecting
the physical environment because of shortsighted economic goals.
(overfishingthe waters off the coast of out islands or cutting down trees in our
mountains and hills will eventually lead to disasters such as flooding or
famines that will affect the society in a detrimental fashion.
Appiahm Kwameh Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues

in Our Time). New York: W.W Norton & Co., 2006
Arivia, GAdis and Donny, Gahral Adian, editors. Relations between Religion and
Cultures in Southeast Asia (Indonesian Philosophical Studies,) Washington, D.C:
Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2009.
Chaleff, Ira. Intelligent Disobedience: Doing Right When What Youre Told to Do is
Wrong. With a Foreword by Philip G. Zimbardo Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publisher , 2015.
Chua, Romulo L. And Rodolfo L. Nazareno. Ang Mahalaga sa Buhay: A handbook of

Filipino Values. n.p.: Cellar Book Shop, 1992.
Dumont, Jean-Pau;. Visayan Vignettes: Ethnographic Traces of a Philippine Island.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Dy. Manuel B., Jr. editor. Philosophy of Man, 2nd ed. , Makati City Goodwill Trading
Co, 2001
Gripaldo, Rolando M., editor. Filipino Cultural Traits: Philippine Philosophical

Studies 3. (Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change, Series III, Southeast Asia,
Volume 1) , n.p.: Council For Research in Values and Philosophy, 2005.
Hourdequin , Marion. Environmental Ethics: From Theory To Practice. London :

Bloomsbury Acedemic, 2015.
Pojman, Louis .P., Paul Pojman , and Katie McShane. Environmental Ethics:
Readings in Theory and Application. 7th ed. Boston . Cengage Learning, 2017
Reyes, Ramon C. .”Man and Historical Action,” Philosophy of Man, edited by

Manuel B. Dy, Jr. 2nd ed., Makati City” Goodwill Trading Co., 2001 pp. 113-118
Rachels. James. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” The Elements of Moral

Philosophy, New York: Random , 1986, pp 15-32.
Activity Sheet
Activity 5
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
1. How can you be a genuine Filipino if you do not follow Filipino customs?
2. What is the distinction between a religious notion of sin and the
philosophical understanding of immoral or unethical acts?
3. How realistic Kohlberg ideal of higher stage of post conventional morality
that of universal ethical principles, given that feelings and emotions are
inseparable from human choice.
4. Given that the human condition is one of finitude, how will you know that
you are sufficiently informed when you finally make your moral judgement
5. If a global ethic is current emerging does this mean that the true meaning or
morality changes over time please explain your answer.
6. Is there a difference between ones ethical responsibility toward fellow
humans and toward nonhuman nature? Please explain your answer?
Assessment Sheet
Assessment 5
NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________
ORGAN TRAFFICKING AND HUMAN NEEDS
The many developments in the past few decades in both the life sciences and in
biotechnology have given rise to the recognition of a host of ethical issues that are
concerned with the physical survival and welfare of living creatures including of
course human beings. These ethical discussions have been gathered under the name of
bioethics, a rapidly emerging field of applied ethics. Both medical ethics and animal
ethics can actually be classified as subfields within the larger sphere of bioethics,
while environmental ethics can have a lot of concerns that are tied up with bioethics
given that animal ethics, in the form of the topic of animal rights, has already been
covered in Chapter II and environmental ethics treated earlier in this chapter, let us
now concentrate on medical ethics. This field focuses on moral issues in medical
practice and research. One such issue that has given rise to much debate is the
phenomenon of organ trafficiking which is defined as the trade in human organs
(whether from living or nonliving people) for the purpose of transplantation. The
trade can happen through the sale of organs or through any other means including
coercive force.
In 2009, the Philippine government halted a planned kidney transplant from a Filipina
wife to her Saudi Arabian husband. It was discovered that the couple had only been
married for a short time and that the man did not know how to speak in English or
Filipino while the wife could not speak Arabic- a situation that raised a lot of
suspicion on the part of the authorities. The government allegation was the planned
transplant was not really an organ donation, which Philippine law allows, but was , in
actuality, a case of an organ sale, which tantamount to organ trafficking prohibited by
law. One possible reason for the woman consent to this alleged deal is the widespread
poverty among Filipinos. Although organ trafficking is patently illegal in the
Philippines and in many other nations, it continues to be a tempting possibility,
especially for impoverished individuals, to earn some much needed cash. Most people
are born with two kidneys and an individual can live on a single kidney. Supposing
that the transplant will be done under strict medical supervision that there is shortage
or available kidney donors and setting aside the clear illegal status of organ
trafficking, is it really wrong for a person in great financial need to sell one of her
kidneys to someone who requires a transplant to survive and who is willing and able
to offer a generous amount of cash.
I. This chapter identified and explained the steps in making informed decisions when
confronted with moral problems. The steps can be summarized as follows:
1. Determine your involvement in the moral situation
2. Gather all the necessary facts
3. Identify the stakeholders
4. Name all the alternative choices possible and their potential effects on all
stakeholders.
5. Identify the type of ethical issue at hand
6. Make your ethical conclusion or decision
Apply now all six steps to the questions, “Is selling one of my kidneys to a paying
customer morally defensible? Write down your application below:
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Step 5:
Step 6:
II. Examine your feelings or emotions regarding the issue of organ trafficking.
Did you feel sympathetic to the woman who was about to sell her kidney to her Saudi
Arabian husband? Or were you morally repulse by what she was planning to do?
Apply Ramon C. Reyes’s idea of the five cross-points the contribute to the formation
of who you are in order to understand your feelings about this particular moral issue.
List below the elements that make up each of your cross points.
1. Physical Cross Points
2. Interpersonal Cross-Points
3. Social Cross Point
4. Historical Cross-Point
5. Existential Cross Point
Given the five cross points that make up who you are, can you provide an explanation
below why you feel the way that you do toward the woman who was about to sell her
kidney? How can you make sure that your feelings about the matter are not trapped in
Kohlbergs pre-conventional stage?
1. How did I feel the woman who was about to sell her kidney and why:
2. How do I make sure my feelings are morally mature and not trapped in the
preconvention stage
III. Search your library resources as well as online sources to come up five other
ethical issues that can be categorized under medical ethics. List the issues down , cite
your sources and provide a short explanation of each issue as well as one main
argument for and one main argument against a particular stand on the issue. Pay the
particular attention to topics that are relevant to the contemporary Philippine context.
Make sure your sources are trustworthy and that you get all the necessary facts
straight (including the possible scientific explanations).
Medical Ethics Issue A:
1. Ethical Issue:
2. Sources:
3. Explanation
4. Position/Stand on the Issue
5. Argument for the Position
6. Argument against the Position
Medical Ethics Issue B.
1. Ethical Issue:
2. Sources
3. Explanation
6. Argument Against the Position
Medical Ethics Issue C.

1. Ethical Issue:
2. Sources
3. Explanation
6. Argument Against the Position
Part II. Write you answers on the provided space.
1. Man and Historical Action explained the “who he is” is a cross point. By this
he means that one’s identity, who one is or who I am, is product of many
forces and events that has earned outside of one choosing. Who Is That Author
___________________________
2. ______________________ the idea that a person beliefs, values and practices

should be understood based on that persons own culture rather than be judged
against the criteria of another.
3. _________________ __theorized the moral development happens in six stages

which he divided into three levels.
4. What stage and level that if an action is good they can avoid punishment ; if its
bad it lead to punishment ________________________
5. In this age in which older children, adolescent and young adults learn to
conform to the expectation of the society. ____________________________
6. The individual at this stage values most the laws, rules, and regulation of her
society and thus her moral reasoning is shaped by dutifulness to the external
standards set by society. _____________________
7. This notion of common good is conventional in the sense that the moral agent
binds herself to what this theoretical community of rational agents has
identified as morally desirable , whether the agent herself will benefit from
doing so or not. ____________________
8. ____________________ Namely agreement that rational agents have arrived
at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be considered the
common good are what one ought to honor and follow.
9. ______________________puts more emphasis on the supposed objective,

universal nature of what is to be considered morally good, basing its reasoning
on the theorized existence of a “human nature”.
10. ____________________Puts every single stakeholders at par with everyone

else, with no one being worth more than any other. Rich or poor, man or
woman, young or old everyone has a much worth as anyone else, values the
“common good” compare to any other ethical frameworks we have covered.
Learner’s Feedback Form
Name of Student: ___________________________________________________

Program : ___________________________________________________
Year Level : ___________ Section : ___________
Faculty : ___________________________________________________
Schedule : ___________________________________________________
Learning Module : Number: _________ Title :

______________________
How do you feel about the topic or concept presented?

□ I completely get it. □ I’m struggling.
□ I’ve almost got it. □ I’m lost.
In what particular portion of this learning packet, you feel that you are struggling or
lost?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__________________
Did you raise your concern to you instructor? □ Yes □ No
If Yes, what did he/she do to help you?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__________________
If No, state your reason?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__________________
To further improve this learning packet, what part do you think should be enhanced?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__________________
How do you want it to be enhanced?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__________________
NOTE: This is an essential part of course module. This must be submitted to the
subject teacher (within the 1st week of the class).

Gec 8 Ethics Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gec 8 Ethics Module

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gec 8 Ethics Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021

Learning Module Development Team

Assigned Title Author/s

(First Name, Middle Initial, Last Name), Position

The goal of higher education institutions is to develop well-rounded individuals who

Course General Objectives

CILO 1 Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems and describe

CILO 3 Use ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral experiences and

CILO 5 Understand and internalize the principles of ethical behavior in modern

From: CILO in CHEd provided Ethics Syllabus https://ched.gov.ph/wp-

• Course Code: GEC 8

Learning Management System

Assessment with Rubrics

Different approaches to the study and understanding of ethics contextualized in

Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations Page

THE ETHICAL DIMENSION

The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence

At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:

Clarifications and Terminologies

b. Etiquette – certain approval or disapproval of actions which can be

c. Technical Valuation – derive from the Greek word “techne” the

2. Ethics and Morals

• Morals – used to refer specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or

• Ethics- the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human

3. Descriptive and Normative

• Descriptive Ethics – reports how people, particularly groups, make

• Normative Ethics – often done in philosophy or moral theology,

4. Issue Decision Judgement and Dilemma

• Moral Decision – when one is faced in a situation and confronted by

e.g. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry

AUTHORITY OF THE LAW

Divine Command Theory

✓ We are presented with a more or less clear code of prohibitions

✓ Religion is not simply prohibitive but it also provides us ideals

✓ Provides us with not just a set of commands but also Supreme

• On the practical level, we realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions.

• We maintain that generally speaking it is a good thing for a person of faith to

1. Cultural relativism seems to conform to what we experience which is the reality of

James Rachels’ Criticism

1. The argument of criticism is premised on the reality of difference. Different

It basically renders us incapable of discerning about what values we may wish

3 SENSES OF THE SELF

➢ “No one can tell me what is right or wrong”

➢ “No one knows my situation better than myself”

➢ “It is good, if I say it is good”

2. Plausibility- It is plausible that self-interest is behind a person’s actions. It is

3. Irrefutable – there is no way to try to answer it without being confronted by

Nagel, Thomas 1979. “The Fragmentation of Value. “Moral Questions. Cambridge:

NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________

COURSE YEAR SEC: ____________________ SCORE: ______________

Part 1. Answer comprehensively.

Art and Offense

What do you think?

I. Imagine a scenario in which an image of someone who is the object of

NAME: _________________________________ DATE: ________________

COURSE YEAR SEC: ____________________ SCORE: ______________

Direction: Answer comprehensively.

b. What is your own ethical judgment on this case?

c. What are your reasons for this judgment?

NAME: _________________ DATE:

COURSE YEAR SEC: ______ SCORE:

NAME: _________________ DATE:

COURSE YEAR SEC: ______ SCORE:

NAME: _________________ DATE:

COURSE YEAR SEC: ______ SCORE:

NAME: _________________ DATE:

COURSE YEAR SEC: ______ SCORE: